Dereje v. State
2012 Minn. App. LEXIS 29
Minn. Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellant Dereje was convicted of fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct after a March 30, 2008 incident involving S.J.
- He faced fourth- and fifth-degree charges; the trial proceeded as a stipulated facts trial under Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 3.
- The district court found Dereje guilty and dismissed the fourth-degree charge; he was sentenced to 360 days, stayed for two years.
- Dereje later petitioned for postconviction relief in 2011 alleging the stipulated facts trial was invalid and counsel was ineffective; the district court denied relief.
- The court held the stipulated facts trial was not valid as written, but treated the proceedings as a court trial based on stipulated evidence; however, it found ineffective assistance of counsel and remanded for a new trial.
- The court reversed and remanded for a new trial due to complete failure of adversarial testing by trial counsel, while also noting the underlying factual and waiver issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can 26.01(3) permit disputed facts to be decided by the court? | Dereje argues the rule allows disputed facts to be resolved by the court. | State argues the rule permits a court to decide guilt from a body of evidence. | Error; a stipulated facts trial must be based on agreed facts, but the error was harmless. |
| Was counsel's performance the reason for reversal under structural error doctrine? | Dereje contends counsel failed to subject the State’s case to adversarial testing. | State contends this is not a complete failure of adversarial testing. | Structural error; reversal and remand for new trial. |
| Are pro se issues meritorious? | Dereje raises points pro se. | Not specified; court declines unsupported pro se arguments. | Pro se issues are not considered without argument or authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Halseth, 653 N.W.2d 782 (Minn.App.2002) (strict construction of rule 26.01 and trial protections)
- Dalbec v. State, 800 N.W.2d 624 (Minn.2011) (structural vs trial error; complete failure by counsel)
- Kuhlmann v. State, 806 N.W.2d 844 (Minn.2011) (plain error and assessing substantial rights)
- State v. Craig, 807 N.W.2d 453 (Minn.App.2011) (stipulation to elements or prior convictions permitted)
- State v. Edstrom, 792 N.W.2d 105 (Minn.App.2010) (receipt of expert testimony by stipulation in lieu of live testimony)
- State v. Roeschelein, 776 N.W.2d 480 (Minn.App.2009) (use of stipulations to limit facts)